Using a new methodology, a Swiss team has calculated that about three-quarters of the warming seen since 1950 is down to human influences
You can clearly see the difference between natural and man-made warming below.
Using an old methodology, I can determine that the Swiss team is completely FOS.
Periods of higher CO2 does not in any way effect the rate of temperature change, according to the graph you present. Expand it out to 1000 or more years, using the corrected non-hockey-stick graph (which is?), and you’ll see that current temps are not unusual.
Right now there is an interesting comment thread going on at ozclimate. Sure, temps rise, and then Co2 rises after the ~800 year lag. But, I (as “Contrapundit”) ask if the following is correct: “There is ABSOLUTELY NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE (or any evidence of any sort) that CO2 leads to an increase in climate temperatures.”
All, please check out this comment thread, and if you have any insight into the big question you can add it here or there:
http://www.ozclimatesense.com/2011/12/australia-shag-on-rock.html
The Swiss study has holes in it, like their cheese.
“Using a new methodology, a Swiss team has calculated that about three-quarters of the warming seen since 1950 is down to human influences…. Using information about the Earth’s “energy balance” – the difference between the amount of energy it receives from the Sun and radiates back into space – researchers from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich arrived at fresh estimates of the effects of greenhouse gas emissions and other human-induced factors.”
Im sorry, but WAG is not a new methodology.
They found a new way to recycle human excrement from other research groups. This is a case of SISO rather than GIGO. This is a photo of their research facility:
http://images2.layoutsparks.com/1/152038/psyche-fantasy-land-story.jpg
That may be NCAR, GISS, or CRU. It is hard to tell the work areas apart, especially when their output is so similar.
NCAR, GISS, CRU, LSD…
Synonyms!!!!
When Pathological just does not convey the best description of their work, Hallucinogenic is probably a better fit
I have to agree with the Swiss team’s conclusion. While I think their methods are Garbage and their claims about energy balance are fairy tales, It is obvious that humans are the primary cause of any observed warming since the thirties. There is evidence that “Corrections” to the observed temperatures account for a god portion of the warming. Equipment siting issues account for a good portion of the warming. Extrapolations to infill nonmeasured regions account for a good portion of the warming.
By my calculations 200% of the warming is accounted for due to various errors which means the globe has cooled up to 2C since 1930!
This report is from the BBC!
Any report purporting to show climate change due to humans will make it onto the BBC News regardless of content especially now with Durban on the go.
BBC News, another scripted program overseen by CRU.
Hey, three quarters of the warming is an improvement on all of it! Perhaps in another 10 years they will only claim 20%?
Steven: If I had stopped by here a couple of days ago, I could have saved myself the time it took to prepare the following post. Your graph and my 6,000-word, 14-illustration post basically say the same thing:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/12/07/on-the-skepticalscience-post-pielke-sr-misinforms-high-school-students/
Sometimes a picture is worth 6,000 words!